for more information:
Craig Williams 859-986-7565 or
859-302-1103
for immediate release, Monday, October 24, 2005
CITIZENS IDENTIFY FACTUAL INACCURACIES
IN ARMY’S RESPONSE TO THEIR SOLUTION FOR DISPOSAL OF INDIANA’S VX HYDROLYSATE
Groups from six states tell
the Army that such distortions are” unfortunate” and “undermine the Army’s
credibility” around chemical demilitarization nationwide
Today, 16 citizen groups from six states refuted the
response the Army gave to their September 1, 2005 solution-based proposal
for the most efficient and safest way to dispose of the secondary waste generated
by VX neutralization at Newport, Indiana. The Army’s response arrived on
September 27, 2005, rejecting the citizens’ proposal.
In their reply to Michael Parker, Director of the Army’s
Chemical Materials Agency, groups from IN, DE, NJ, OH, PA and KY exposed
numerous examples of distortions and factual inaccuracies contained in the
Army’s response. In addition they presented further evidence supporting their
position that the VX hydrolysate (VXH) from Indiana can be safely treated
on-site rather than transported across at least four states for treatment
at DuPont’s Chambers Works facility in New Jersey, the end product
being discharged into the Delaware River—the Army’s preferred solution.
The primary points made in today’s letter are the following:
- While the Army stated that there was “universal”
and continuing community support in Indiana for off-site treatment, post
9/11, just the opposite is true. Today’s letter identified significant
opposition from citizen groups, local unions, elected officials and local
governments in Indiana. Additionally, there has been overwhelming resistance
to receiving this material expressed on local, state and federal levels in
Delaware and New Jersey. There is also growing opposition along the
transportation corridors in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
- The Army’s assertion that DuPont’s treatment
would far exceed discharge standards for the Delaware River has not been
validated by the Centers for Disease Control and the USEPA who, in their
April 2005 report, actually recommended against treating the nerve agent
derivatives at DuPont’s Chamber Works. At the present time no additional
reports have been issued contradicting these recommendations.
- The Army misrepresented the ability of the approved
and permitted on-site treatment process—Super Critical Water Oxidation (SCWO)—to
adequately and expeditiously treat the VXH in Indiana. The “significant
challenges” to the process cited by the Army do not accurately reflect the
state of the technology today. All major technical issues have been resolved
over the last five years to the point that the Army recently approved SCWO
for VXH treatment in Kentucky.
- Although the Army concludes that transportation
of the VXH to DuPont would be more cost-efficient, they have so far presented
no actual anticipated cost savings that would serve as a basis for such a
conclusion. Additionally, today’s letter accused the Army Public Affairs
Office of “gross exaggerations” surrounding cost savings meant only to curry
favor with taxpayers and elected officials.
- While the Army alleges that state regulators
have endorsed off-site treatment of the VXH by DuPont, the facts contradict
their position. Statements in the media by regulators from both New
Jersey and Delaware have been disparaging about the process. Just one
example is that in May 2005 the Commissioner of the NJ Department of Environmental
Protection stated that the “proposal is flawed and should be abandoned.”
To conclude their letter, the 16 groups advised the
Army that these kinds of distortions have a “nationwide ripple effect that
impacts all aspects of the Chem Demilitarization program at all sites” and
urged the Army to reconsider their solution to the VXH issue.
CWWG director , Craig Williams said, “It’s disheartening
that the Army continues to press forward on a poor decision made years ago,
in light of growing opposition, advances in technical capabilities to treat
this material where it is, and identified negative impacts to the Delaware
River. It’s time for this off-site option to go away as well.”
-30-
Copies of the original proposal, the Army response
and today’s letter are posted at: <www.cwwg.org>.
